On Thu, Dec 08, 2005 at 10:44:36PM +0000, Neil Williams wrote: > On Thursday 08 December 2005 9:29 pm, Chris Shoemaker wrote: > > - gnucash-patches is being use for two very different purposes; 1) > > user patch submission, 2) syndication of commit messages. > > When I subscribed, I expected gnucash-changes to be the automated logs and > gnucash-patches for submissions. To me, that is more intuitive. > > > Goals: > > - I want the user-submitted patches and follow-up discussion to get > > a lot of visibility. > > - I'd love to unsubscribe from the commit message syndication and cut > > my gnucash-related email in half. > > As long as the diffs still come through so that each of us is aware if > someone > commits a change that maybe conflicts with local development code or contains > a flaw that would be obvious to someone else. > > SVN diffs -> gnucash-changes because the code has changed. > patches -> gnucash-patches because the patch needs to be applied. > > Cease all current svn direction to gnucash-patches.
I proposed this before and it was not received too favorably. I pretty much agree with you about the uselessness of sending commit messages to -patches, but some people seem to want this. OTOH, I still don't like the idea of segmenting out a list just for submission and discussion of a few patches. So, combining what I agree with about your proposal with what I want to retain from my proposal would mean the complete elimination of -patches. I can't say I'd mind. > > - gnucash-patches becomes essentially only a syndication of commit > (gnucash-changes) > > > messages, which some people seem to want. > > The naming seems obtuse - patches are what come in, changes are what we make. I agree that the naming is totally backward for what I'm proposing. If renaming the list was easy I'd call it "gnucash-commit-log". > > When a developer with svn access makes a commit, that is a change to the > codebase - gnucash-changes. > > When a developer/user without svn access creates a patch, it would seem > natural to send that to gnucash-patches. > > Once applied, it goes onto gnucash-changes. > > > Disclaimer: I have diminishing sympathy for any self-proclaimed > > non-developers who might say that they want to remain subscribed to > > -devel but don't want user-sumbitted patches crowding their inbox. > > Agreed. I see no reason for the current messages from SVN to gnucash-patches > (never have really). I think they should stop and leave gnucash-patches only > for contributed code and gnucash-changes only for commit messages *with* > diffs. Well, we agree about reducing the dual use of -patches. And if there's no uproar, I'd agree with you about dropping the commit-log, too. But I still think it's better to concentrate eyeballs onto one list instead of -devel and -patches. Part of my motivation is that I think developers are grown by example. Segregating patch submission means that lots of "aspiring" developers won't actually see any user submitting code, because they'd subscribe to -devel but not -patches. OTOH, when all of the aspiring developers on -devel see the occasional fellow-user submitting patches, it fosters thoughts like "Oh, so that's how people submit patches" and "Hmm, maybe I can do that, too." IOW, reducing my mail flow is really only the fringe benefit. My real motivation is community development. -chris _______________________________________________ gnucash-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
